Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News (report) that Petraeus's denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist "would have been a presidential decision."

Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, (asking) Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were "happening."

Emails released earlier this week (indicated) that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex.

Jake Tapper (quoted) Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame:

"So who in the government did tell anybody not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard has a list of 10 questions the President can answer NOW!

Among them: 1)Did you give specific order that the Consulate employees were to be saved? If so, to whom?
2) Did you meet with your National Security Staff during anytime the attack was in progress? What actions resulted?

You see, the Prez has complete answers to these important questions and needs no more time to respond.

Various reports have stated that there was a total of around 30 people at the US Consulate and at the safe house in Benghazi. There should be several more individuals who could provide facts about what happened during the attack, and what requests for help were made and what the response was.

Right! Call or write your paper...your place of worship, this president is walking away from his mess as fast as he can....DON’T LET HIM...hammer away at your senators & congressmen for answers. The Benghazi massacre cannot be swept under the Obama rug or thrown under the Obama bus...keep this scandal on the front page.

15
posted on 10/28/2012 7:52:00 AM PDT
by yoe
(Vote for the Real American whose love for his country was NEVER in question.)

Remember, Obama has taken great pride in saying that Libya was liberated without American blood being shed. Obama did not want potential voters to wake up to our uniformed military being KIA.

So, DOD assets were told to stand down as CIA subcontractors, whose presence could be concealed, were tasked with extracting diplomatic assets from the Mission. Also, those operators were familiar with the battlefield and were leveraged with local friendly militia.

As the battlefield was so unshaped and on/off and populated by hostiles of unknown strength and unknown weapons, this was a reasonable tactical choice anyway.

Other rapid response units that could have gotten there would have been too little and too late.

General Ham and Africom, were frustrated that in this theater of their responsibility, they were not in position to act effectively.

16
posted on 10/28/2012 8:29:41 AM PDT
by gandalftb
(The art of diplomacy says "nice doggie", until you find a bigger rock.)

There was nearly zero discussion about Libya or Benghazi at all on Meet The Press this morning. Someone said the word once, possibly Noonan, but she was immediately cut off and they went on to other pro -bama drivel.

I could not care less right now about anything having to do with three counties in Ohio, but that is everything they concentrated their hour on today. I tuned in especially to hear people discuss Benghazi. Blast ‘em!

24
posted on 10/28/2012 11:03:26 AM PDT
by AFPhys
((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))

“...Next Question: “Mr. President, were you in the situation room at any time during the Benghazi terrorist attack?”...”

Uh, um...hu...let me be perfectly...uhhhhh...clear on uuhhh, this....I was...uh...not in the situation room at the time....uhh...However, Ms. Jarrett was...ummm...uhhh..who I have full...uhhh...confidence in...She...uhhh...made the right call to uhhhhh....stand down. Me????! Oh...uhhhh...I was coked out with...uhhhh...one of my....ummm...bathhouse buds..in the uhhhhh....bedroom...but Ms. Jarrett is uhhhhh...was focused like ummm...uhhhh...laser on this.

If he fires Petraeus for what he just said, I think they’ll have to start covering this. But however dumb we may like to think BHO is, he’s not that stupid. Will he ignore reporters from FNC asking him to respond to Petraeus, though? Will the MSM let him get away with that?

He testified to congress that the video started riots that lead to the death of the ambassador... That lie to congress is a serious mark on Petraeus.. He should resign or be fired.

I have not done an extensive search, but the video excuse seemed to 'evolve' [Team Obama and MSM sure do like that word] in this manner:

In her remarks at the State Department on Wednesday, September 12, one day after the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton mentioned "inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

That statement may have given the WH an idea: Task some aides and underlings with Googling the Internet for inflammatory material. Someone found an obscure anti-Islam video. They 'evolved' the narrative to make the video the culprit.

By Thursday, September 13, Clinton was saying there is "no justification  none at all  for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted, in the strongest terms."

Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11.

Petraeus denies it? Well then, CIA's out.

Hillary denied it? State's out.

After all, who needs common sense - just ask the people who clearly were involved, and when they say they weren't, well, thereyago.

I still say that the producer of “the vile video” was paid to make it with stimulus money and that is the reason that he is being held....until after the election...or forever....(heart attack in jail etc)...

It's apparently going to be up to Fox News to lead the way on this bombshell scandal.

Eventually, the other mass media outlets will have to start covering this tragic story, or else they're gonna lose even more viewers to Fox News.

The mainstream media is destroying its reputation beyond repair as a result of their lack of coverage on this story. As Pat Caddell has said, they, (and the administration they cover for) have become a "fundamental threat to [the Republic]"...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.